Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school is arbitrary and unreasonable. The apex court was hearing a case in which the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court was challenged with respect to the dispute relating to the notification issued by NCTE.
The division-judge Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, “… we are unable to comprehend as to what was the pressing need to include B.Ed. candidates, who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently, the decision of the NCTE to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also ‘quality’ education.”
The Court ruled that the NCTE was unjustified in adding B.Ed., which it had previously purposefully left out of the eligibility criterion, as a requirement for appointment to the position of primary school teacher (Level-1). Further, the court held that the Rajasthan High Court by way of the Impugned Judgement had rightly struck down the notification.
Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia represented the petitioners. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the Diploma holders and Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the State. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Vikramjeet Banerjee represented the Centre.
In 2018, NCTE released a notification which made B.Ed. degree holders eligible for appointment to the post of primary school teachers. NCTE exercised its powers under Section 23(1) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE). Despite the notification, B.Ed. holders were not included on the list of qualified candidates when the Board of Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, published an advertisement for the Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET Level-1). The Rajasthan government’s move was contested before the High Court.
The petitioner had a B.Ed. degree and was eligible as per the notification. He filed a petition before the High Court. In addition to these petitioners, there were additional petitioners who had their own grievances. These petitioners were elementary education candidates who held the D.El.Ed. diploma, which was the only teaching credential required for teachers at the primary level, and who felt wronged by the hiring of B.Ed. qualified candidates. The High Court had quashed the notification, stating that B.Ed. candidates to be unqualified for the posts of primary school teachers. Hence, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Whether NCTE was correct to include a B.Ed. qualification as an equivalent and required qualification for admission to the post of a primary school teacher was the issue before the court. The Bench remarked, “The inherent pedagogical weakness in B.Ed. courses (for primary classes), is well recognised, and it is for this reason that in the impugned notification itself it is provided that B.Ed. trained teachers will have to undergo a six months training in elementary classes, within the first two years of their appointment. … In this background, the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates for primary level classes is beyond our comprehension.”
The Bench highlighted the need for quality and meaningful primary education, which was pointed out by the legislature and NCTE throughout. “In primary education, any compromise on ‘quality’ of education would mean going against the very mandate of Article 21A and the Act. The value of Primary education can never be overstated”, also said the Court. The Court observed that the NCTE is bound to follow the directions of the Central Government and the direction in this case was to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in primary school, which has been done by NCTE through the notification. “We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that policy decisions of the Government should normally not be interfered with, by a constitutional Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. At the same time if the policy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational, powers of judicial review must be exercised.”
The Court further stated that a policy decision that is wholly arbitrary, against the law, or that has been made without using proper judgement or with complete disregard for pertinent circumstances is subject to challenge because that is likewise required by law and the Constitution –“The decision whether to include or exclude B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in primary school is an academic decision, which has to be taken after proper study by the academic body i.e. NCTE and should be better left to this expert body. … But as we have seen the decision to include B.Ed. as a qualification is not an independent decision of NCTE, but it was the decision of the Central Government and NCTE was simply directed to carry it out for that being a direction under Section 29 of NCTE Act, a direction NCTE followed”.
The Court held that it was not a policy decision as the same was against fundamental right granted in the Constitution under Article 21A – “The only logic given by the Central Government to include B.Ed. as a qualification is that it is a ‘higher qualification’. This we have already seen is not correct. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the notification has rightly been quashed and the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has to be upheld.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the judgment of the High Court, quashed the notification, and disposed of the writ petitions.
Name of the case: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.
Bench: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia